The G.O.C. and R.O.C.O.R. - 1971

In 1971 Metropolitans
Callistus of Corinth and Epiphanius of Kition (Cyprus) and the Chancellor,
Protopriest Eugene Tombros of the GOC (Matthewite) Synod traveled to New
York to meet with the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia (ROCOR), “in order to come into contact with your Synod and
regularize spiritual communion with you for the strengthening of the Holy
Struggle of Orthodoxy”.

The ROCOR hierarchs
showed great interest and admiration for the True Orthodox struggle in
Greece, and when the "Exposition of Faith" of the Matthewite
Synod was translated into Russian and read aloud by Archpriest George
Grabbe to the Synod of Bishops, they unanimously accepted this confession
of the Faith including the ecclesiological statements contained therein.
Also, the issue of the ‘single-handed’ consecration was discussed and
the hierarchs present regarded it to be an acceptable act of economia.
The two Matthewite hierarchs then gave a report to the Holy Synod of the
GOC in Athens.

Shortly thereafter,
Auxentios Pastras, the "Archbishop" of the Acacian/Florinite
faction, traveled to America in order to meet Metropolitan Philaret and
the other ROCOR hierarchs, and also to persuade the ROCOR Synod not to
accept the Matthewite hierarchs into communion due to the fact that they
originate from the ‘single-handed’ consecration of 1948. The ROCOR
hierarchs, on the other hand, made it known that they did not consider the
act of ‘single-handed’ consecration to be outside the limits of economia.
Archbishop Auxentios, however, insisted that the Matthewite orders should
at least be somehow corrected; otherwise he will not recognize the ROCOR
Synod's decision.

Upon returning to
Greece, Archbishop Auxentios stated that the Matthewite hierarchs were
"ashamed" of their "uncanonical orders" and sought to
have them "corrected" by the ROCOR Synod. This statement of
Auxentius Pastras is proven to be false by the very petition the
Matthewite delegates sent to the ROCOR Synod. In their petition, the
Matthewite delegates clearly stated that they considered their orders to
be completely valid and canonical, and not in need of correction. The
relevant text of the petition is as follows (see: HOCNA, The Struggle
Against Ecumenism, Boston, Massachusetts, 1998, p. 88):

"As is well
known, in the ancient Church, these acts, insofar as they are in
accord with canonical injunctions, brings us to the sure conclusion
that a consecration of a bishop by one bishop is canonical and necessary
under these circumstances. Consequently, a bishop consecrated under such
circumstances cannot be considered uncanonical, and therefore,
invalidly consecrated, unless, of course, other factors enter into the
picture, which would invalidate the consecrations, such as a consecration
outside of the church building itself, simony, etc.

"Furthermore, by condescension and economia, any doubt that
might exist concerning the canonicity of such consecrations is dispelled,
especially when it is shown that they were performed in a time of
persecution when no other bishop was to be found, as mentioned above."Consequently,
it can be clearly understood that a consecration of a bishop by one bishop
is, because of the situation that existed, permitted and therefore
lawful, because it does not go beyond the limits foreseen by the Church's
usage of economia.

"Wherefore, in view of this, we submit our present petition unto
Your Holy and Sacred Synod, and we are ready to accept its every decision
based, always, upon the divine and sacred Canons.

"New York,
September 1971 The Synodical Committee

+ Kallistos,
Metropolitan of Corinth

+ Epiphanios,
Metropolitan of Kition

+ Eugene Tombros,
Protopresbyter"

The Synod of Bishops of
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad resolved the issue according to what
they had been informed by various sources, and also acted according to the
persuasions of "Archbishop" Auxentios Pastras. In their
resolution the ROCOR hierarchs wrote:

"Earlier in an
address to the Synod on August 29, 1971, Archbishop Auxentius requested
the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to
express its judgement regarding how clergymen of the
"Matthewites" (i.e., Old Calendar Greeks who are led by
bishops originating from the consecration performed by one bishop) should
be accepted.

"The history is as follows:

"When the Church of Greece in 1924 declared that it accepted the
new calendar, discontent arose and several groups were formed which did
not accept that reform. However, they were not united.

"In 1935 three bishops, who at that time belonged to the State
Church (Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostom of Florina, and Chrysostom of
Zakinthos) joined the movement. They immediately proceeded to consecrate
four more bishops: Germanos of the Cyclades Islands, Christopher of
Christianoupolis, Polycarp of Diavlia, and Matthew of Bresthena.However those bishops soon developed disagreements and their Synod
dissolved. Three bishops abandoned the movement. Germanos of Demetrias
died. Only Polycarp of Diavlia and Matthew of Bresthena were left, whereas
Chrysostom of Florina separated from them and remained alone. In 1948,
Matthew of Bresthena, convinced that under conditions of persecution no
other means existed to maintain a truly Orthodox Greek hierarchy,
proceeded alone to perform consecrations of bishops. It is impossible
for us to clearly decide how far it could have been possible for him at
the time to secure the assistance of Bishop Polycarp or Bishop Chrysostom
in performing the first consecration..."

Firstly, the above
"history" is full of errors. From this it is clear that the
ROCOR Synod did not have adequate information regarding this matter, as
they themselves admitted. Since the ROCOR hierarchy stated that "it
is impossible" for them to clearly decide whether a
‘single-handed’ consecration was necessary in 1948, then it is equally
"impossible" for the ROCOR Synod to have made an accurate
decision based on historical facts. (Please scroll up to the information
regarding the ‘single-handed’ consecration to see the conditions of
those times.) The resolution of the ROCOR Synod continues:

"... As often
happens in such cases, the Synod is faced by the confrontation of two
principals: exactness and economia.

"Before deciding
which point of view should prevail in this case, one must decide if it is
at all necessary to apply one of these two principals, or, to be more
exact, cannot the principal of economia extend so far as to recognize
the Matthewite consecrations as valid in general. In other words, one
must consider the validity of episcopal consecrations by one
bishop..."

The resolution then
continues by naming many cases throughout Church history in which
‘single-handed’ consecrations were performed and recognized as lawful.
Regarding the last few words in the above quote, "one must
consider the validity of episcopal consecrations by one bishop,"
the ROCOR Synod later proved itself to believe in such a validity since
the ROCOR Synod itself recognized the act of ‘single-handed’
consecration which the ROCOR hierarch Barnabas of Cannes performed on
Lazarus of Tambov in the next decade. The ROCOR Synod's resolution then
lists a number of canons that apply to bishops that have been consecrated
without synodical approval. However, these canons do not apply to Bishop
Matthew since he himself was the only remaining bishop of his Synod, for
the other bishops had either joined the New Calendarists or had denied the
True Orthodox Confession of Faith. The canons that the resolution listed,
on the other hand, do apply to "Archbishops" Akakios and
Auxentios and their "Synod." It is quite odd that the ROCOR
Synod did not mention any of these canons when they received the
"Auxentian" hierarchy, a hierarchy to which these canons
strongly apply; yet these canons were brought up in regards to the
resolution regarding the Matthewite hierarchy, to whom these canons do not
apply at all.

However, in the
resolution regarding the Matthewite orders, the ROCOR Synod does at least
mention the Akakio-Auxentian hierarchy's uncanonical origins:

"... It is
therefore understandable that the consecration of Archbishop Akakios and
the consecrations which followed it raised doubts in many until it was confirmed
and legalized by a decision of the Synod [on December 18,
1969]."

The ROCOR Synod's
resolution then makes the following statement: "... A simple
recognition of their orders could bring scandal as a direct violation of
canons: the first Apostolic Canon, Canon Four of the First Ecumenical
Council, and Canon Three of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. However, it is
evident from the other examples mentioned that there is full reason to
apply economia to them, in accordance with Canon Eight of the First
Ecumenical Council and Canon Seventy-nine of Carthage."

This statement is very
strange to say the least. Firstly because the second and third canons
mentioned do not apply to the Matthewite Synod but rather to the Auxentian
Synod (!!!), and this latter Synod was simply recognized without a proper
examination of the Canons. Secondly, the fourth and fifth canons mentioned
apply to Donatists and Novatians whereas the ROCOR Synod assured in the
same resolution that "from what was said in the beginning of this
Resolution, it is evident that the old calendarists headed by the
hierarchy proceeding from Matthew's consecration can hardly be compared
with such.

The Resolution then continues:

"Taking into
consideration all the aforesaid, as well as the desire expressed by
Archbishop Auxentios... the Synod of Bishops resolves:

"1. To acknowledge the possibility of fulfilling the petition of
Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios. To that end, two bishops must
perform the laying-on of hands over them. They, in turn, must subsequently
perform the same over their brethren, and all bishops over the priests;

"2. To oblige Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, as well as
their brethren, to take all possible steps to unite their hierarchy,
clergy, and people with those who are headed by His Beatitude, Archbishop
Auxentios;

"3. To inform His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentios, concerning the
aforesaid;

"4. To delegate the Most Reverend Archbishop Philotheus and Bishop
Constantine to fulfill the provision of paragraph one of this Resolution
at Transfiguration Monastery in Boston.

"For the Council of Bishops,

+ Bishop Laurus of
Manhattan, Secretary to the Synod"

Metropolitans Kallistos
and Epiphanios at first did not agree with this Resolution, especially
since it required the Matthewite hierarchs to receive a "laying-on of
hands," whereas the Matthewite delegates believed that their orders
were complete and without need of re-ordination. However, the ROCOR Synod
assured Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios that the "laying-on of
hands" was simply a blessing and a confirmation of the
"form" (Greek: ), whereas the "essence" (Greek: ) of
the Apostolic Succession of the Matthewite Synod originates from 1948 and
is recognized as completely canonical and valid. The ROCOR Synod
reconfirmed this in 1974 when the second Matthewite delegation
(Metropolitans Kallistos and Nicholas) was sent to the ROCOR Synodal
headquarters. Metropolitan Kallistos confirms this also once again in his
letter to the ROCOR Synod dated February 4, 1975. Also, the ROCOR Synod
explained its interpretation of the "laying-on of hands" in
their Resolution (see: HOCNA, The Struggle Against Ecumenism,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1998, p. 94):

"There is some
difference of opinion in regard to understanding the phrase
"laying-on of hands"... it seems that a more authoritative
explanation was given by Saint Tarasios at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
When someone asked how one should understand the words "laying-on of
hands" in Canon Eight of the First Ecumenical Council, the Saint
explained that the word "consecration" is not used here,
but another one, and that this [latter] term means only a
blessing."

Also, St. Nicodemus of
Mount Athos, in his footnote to Canon VIII of the First Ecumenical
Council, writes (see: OCES, The Rudder, Chicago Illinois, 1957,
pp.177): "That my words are true is attested by the Seventh
Ecumenical Council. For when this same Canon was read in the first act of
the same Council, and it was asked how the expression "laying-on of
hands" was to be understood, most saintly Tarasios said that the
phrase "laying-on of hands" was employed here in the sense of
blessing, and not with reference to any ordination. Hence spiritual
fathers ought to learn from this Canon to lay their hands on the heads
of penitents when they read to them the prayer of pardon..."

In the above passage,
the phrase "laying-on of hands" means a simple
"blessing" with the "prayer of pardon" such as is read
over a penitent sinner after confession. Indeed, even Metropolitan
Philaret of New York, in his letter to Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kition
(#77, 15/28-79), referred to the laying-on of hands as a "prayer of
absolution". This was because the prayer read over the Matthewite
bishops was the same prayer read over a penitent sinner at the end of
confession. This was the very prayer the Matthewite hierarchs were asked
to read over their brethren and fellow clergymen, to wit, the prayer of
absolution. Hence the "laying-on of hands" accompanied by the
"prayer of absolution" was read over the already-vested
Matthewite hierarchs during the Divine Liturgy on the 17th and 18th of
September, 1971 (old style), in accordance with the ROCOR Synod's
Resolution. At the very same time, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad also informed Archbishop Auxentios Pastras (the
leader of the Florinite-Acacian faction) that they had entered into
communion with the Synod of the Matthewites, and had accepted them as
already-vested bishops, with only the prayer of absolution read upon them
as a simple blessing. Unfortunately, Archbishop Auxentios' reaction was
extremely hostile. Upon receiving the news from the ROCOR Synod,
Archbishop Auxentius wrote the following in an official encyclical (see:
Encyclical of Archbishop Auxentios, # 534, dated 18/9/1971 old style):

"... Although we
were certain that they would not make any resolutions with them without
our knowledge or consent, completely paradoxically and in spite of every
expectation, we were informed that the Synod of the Most Reverend
Philaret has decided to recognize AS CANONICAL the pseudo-bishops of the
deceased Bishop Matthew... This foresaid information greatly afflicted
us (Greek: ), but having already regained our composure, we have decided
to confront the current situation from its very origin, in a calm and
serious manner. We do not know which excuses the Holy Synod of the Russian
Church in America shall give for this perfidious act (Greek: )... We
shall not occupy ourselves any further with them, and neither shall we
recognize the uncanonical acts of anyone regarding this matter." [emphasis
added, S.M.]

Archbishop Auxentios’
hostility towards the Matthewites, his refusal to accept the ROCOR Synod's
resolution, and his unwillingness to enter into theological dialogue for
the purpose of union with the Matthewite Synod, proved that Archbishop
Auxentios did not truly care for the unity of the True Orthodox
Christians, as he so claimed. On the contrary, Archbishop Auxentios’
hostility and uncanonical acts brought further division. For instance,
although Archbishop Auxentios was in communion with the ROCOR Synod, which
was in communion with the Matthewite Synod, Archbishop Auxentios proceeded
with the hasty consecration of Chrysostom Kiousis of Thessalonica and
Akakios Mouskos of Montreal, even though there were already longstanding
hierarchs of the Matthewite and ROCOR Synods (Demetrios of Thessalonica
and Vitaly of Montreal respectively) that held those very titles.
Furthermore, Archbishop Auxentios’ uncanonical acts caused at least four
of his hierarchs to individually break communion from him by 1974, and
Auxentios’ uncanonical consecration of Gabriel of Lisbon eventually
caused the ROCOR Synod to break communion from him within the same decade.

Metropolitan Kallistos
of Corinth, Metropolitan Nicholas of Piraeus and Archimandrite Kallinikos
(the latter of which later became a bishop of the Kallistite Synod, and is
currently within the Kiousite Synod) confirm in their official epistle to
the Greek parishes in America (dated February 8, 1975) that the Greek
Orthodox monasteries, parishes and communities that found themselves
within the ROCOR, would only recognize the Matthewite Synod as the
original True Orthodox Church of Greece. Furthermore, it is also well
known that these same Greek ROCOR priests and their faithful, while
visiting Greece, would only attend services and receive the Sacred
Mysteries in churches belonging to the Matthewite Synod. After the
Matthewite Synod had fulfilled the ROCOR Synod's requirement regarding the
prayers of absolution, Metropolitan Philaret, on behalf of his Holy Synod,
sent an official Encyclical (dated October 21 / November 3, 1972) to
Archbishop Andreas, President of the Matthewite Synod, which stated the
following:

"We make it
known to all, that, after the laying-on of hands, which has been
fulfilled as a blessing to Your Beatitude's Sacred Hierarchy, our
Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia enters
into full Ecclesiastical and Sacramental Communion with the Orthodox
Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece, of which Your Beatitude is a
Bishop.

"I cordially
pray that our Lord will bless and guide the Hierarchy, Clergy and Laity of
Your Beatitude's God-protected Church forever.

"Your Beatitude's devoted brother in Christ,

+ Metropolitan Philaret

President of the
Synod of Bishops

+ Bishop Laurus

Secretary to the
Synod of Bishops"

However, Archbishop Auxentios, noticing the failure of his
initial tactic of not recognizing the ROCOR Synod's decision regarding the
Matthewite Synod, began his second satanic campaign by spreading false
allegations that the Matthewite bishops were supposedly
"re-consecrated" by the ROCOR Synod in 1971. Although this led
to much confusion, Archbishop Auxentios failed to provide any evidence for
his claims. In fact, most of the evidence proved quite the contrary. For
example, the following document was sent by Archpriest George Grabbe, the
director of the Public and Foreign Relations Department of the ROCOR Synod
(dated October 25 / November 7, 1973):

"Dear Mr.
Shallcross,

"Your letter of October 11, 1973 has been received.

"The Bishops Kallistos and Epiphanios were not ordained by our
Synod. They were accepted into communion as Bishops with only
laying on of hands on them, already in bishops' vestments,
according to the 8 Canon of the First Ecumenical Council. That was to
rectify beyond doubts the irregularity caused by the founding of their
hierarchy through the consecration originally performed by one bishop.

"Sincerely yours,

+ Archpriest George Grabbe"

The above statement clearly shows that the Matthewite
hierarchs were accepted into communion as Bishops in full rank, and
already vested in their hierarchical vestments, including omophorion,
before the prayer of pardon was read upon them.
In 1974, in order to clarify the facts and dispel Archbishop Auxentios’
false allegations, Archbishop Andreas of Athens and all Greece (the
President of the Matthewite Synod), wrote that the spiritual communion and
union between the Matthewite and ROCOR Synods in the year 1971 occurred:

"a) After the
"Exposition of the Faith" of our Church was read so as to be
heard by the Synod of the Russian Bishops, and only after the Russians
unanimously and loudly confessed and accepted the confession of our
Orthodox Faith;

"b) Since they promised that they would also send a written
statement [containing the same confession], and since they united with us
in this very sense and this very opinion... and with that also they
recognized the Orthodox and valid Episcopacy (Greek: ) of our
Hierarchs;

"It would have been perhaps important if our hierarchs also showed
the obligatory Christian and brother-loving (Greek: ) humility to accept
the fulfillment of the external form of the laying-on of hands, [which
was]entirely in form alone, and not in essence.Our Hierarchs had their Episcopacy complete and perfect from the
very moment of their consecration and nothing at all was missing from
them, neither charismatically nor dogmatically, that is, they possessed the
entire fullness of the Episcopacy. They had, and they continue to
have, their Episcopacy full and operative (Greek: ). The Russians, on the
other hand, did not supplement their Episcopacy, nor did they add
anything, but [rather], they RECOGNIZED the already existent
Episcopacy [of the Matthewite Synod] and not the inexistence
thereof.

"The laying-on of hands that occurred was, and is, nothing other
than the performance of an external form, and this [took place],
not for any reason other than to shut the unobstructable mouths of the
those [who] were long ago proscribed for this offence and always
contradict and oppose the truth, [to wit,] the
"Florino-Auxentians." This was so that one of their arguments [i.e.,
their only worthy argument that of the ‘single-handed’ consecrations]
would be completely deducted; and so that those who are "the true and
real Genuine Orthodox Christians and Shepherds would indicate the proper
humility, conciliatory mood and brother-loving opinion towards
union." [N.B. emphasis added, S.M.]

Throughout this
time-period, the Matthewite Synod constantly sent epistles and encyclicals
asking the Auxentian Synod to enter into dialogue with the Matthewite
Synod for the purpose of communion and union for the sake of the True
Orthodox Struggle, in accordance with the desire of the ROCOR Synod as
expressed in its Resolution. However, Archbishop Auxentios refused to
enter into dialogue with the Matthewite Synod, but rather continued to
spread false allegations against the Matthewite hierarchs. Nevertheless,
the fact that Archbishop Auxentios’ false allegations contradicted one
another was humorous, yet quite sad, to say the least. At first,
Archbishop Auxentios refused to recognize the Resolution of the ROCOR
Synod of Bishops because the latter had "uncanonically"
recognized the Matthewite Synod as canonical. However, when this initial
position was no longer suitable, Archbishop Auxentios then began stating
that the ROCOR Synod had "re-consecrated" the Matthewite
hierarchy. When hierarchs of both the ROCOR and Matthewite Synods proved
that this latter allegation was false, Archbishop Auxentios then stated
that the Matthewites had received a "regularization" but that
they had supposedly later "reverted it" by denying that it was
ever a "regularization" at all.

The closest the
Matthewites ever got to receiving a written confession of faith from ROCOR
is the following letter from Archbishop Vitaly of Canada to the Matthewite
Archbishop Andrew:

“Your Beatitude,
…with regard to your... epistle № 803/May 13, 1972, addressed to
His Beatitude, since the President of our Holy Synod, Kyrios Kyrios
Philaret has been for a long time absent abroad, I am undertaking the
needed answer, so that your epistle may not remain unanswered for long.
The fact that the calendar innovation of 1924 brought schism to the Holy
Orthodox Church could not be more obvious and no Orthodox and judicious
person can ignore that sorrowful reality. So that no one may wrongly think
that our Holy Russian Church - which is authoritatively represented by our
Holy Synod - partakes in the most bitter taste of this damnable schism,
allow me to make mention to your Beatitude of just two among many
disasters which we, as Russian Orthodox, have undergone as consequences of
that coup d’йtat, which was carried out by ... Meletios Metaxakis
and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of sorrowful memory... Our Greek brothers
have informed us about similar cases on... the Holy Mountain, Cyprus,
etc.... It is wrong for one to think that there was a time during which we
ourselves, the Orthodox Russian people, have not lived through the drama
of the calendar change. The calendar issue was settled during the time of
Pope Gregory, when the Orthodox Church was called to join the mentioned
change. Already from that moment the Church has expressed her opinion, the
Church has condemned and anathematized it. And the ecclesial conscience
has many times and in many places confirmed that condemnation by many
acts, declarations and actions.... Also, during the 20th century, on the
Holy Mountain, where our Synod was not represented, but the Serbian
Church, which at that time sheltered us and with which we were spiritually
and ecclesiologically united, was, the then Bishop of Ochrid, Nikolaj
Velimirovich, did not consent to serve the Liturgy with the other
innovating hierarchs in the monastery of Vatopedi.... So our Holy Synod
from the very beginning has been conscious that the calendar problem is
the cause of a schism... During the lately convened Great Hierarchical
Council in the cathedral of St. Nicholas in Montreal, the seat of my
mediocrity, the eternal condemnation of the papist calendar was repeated,
when we in a conciliar manner condemned the heresy of ecumenism, the door
to which heresy has been shown in detail to be precisely this issue...
With the authority of that Council, ... the President of our Holy Synod
wrote ... the Second sorrowful epistle... in which he profoundly dealt
with the calendar issue as the forerunner of ecumenism... So our Holy
Synod, having from the beginning the correct understanding with regard to
that issue, never acknowledged the calendar change as an irrevocable act,
but always awaited the opportunity for a Pan-Orthodox Council to be freely
convened, not in order to give its opinion on the issue, because the Holy
Church has already done that from the beginning, but in order to reject
the infiltrated deceit, no longer administering the condemnation as a
preventative measure, as was the case in the past, but concretely in the
case of the coup d'йtat that had already taken place... If our Holy
Church has until recently practiced condescension in the sphere of
relations with other churches, it was in the hope that a free Pan-Orthodox
Council would be convened, which in our opinion cannot happen without
setting free the Russian Church... Seeing, however, that the desired
Pan-Orthodox Council not only cannot be free, but also that it may not
condemn the innovation and bring peace back to the Church, but that it
will actually adhere to the heresy, we, obeying our hierarchical
conscience, are ringing the warning bells... What further proof is
needed... to show that the confession of Faith of our Holy Synod
concerning the calendar change, as one that is the cause of a schism, is
clear and consistent?… In conclusion, we inform your Beatitude
that a Greek Presbyter, Basil Sakkas, a parish priest in Geneva in
canonical subordination to our Holy Synod... has presented me with a
voluminous work concerning the issue, justifying the conscientious stance
of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece… Our Blessed President Kyrios
Kyrios Philaret in the form of a preface has blessed the English
translation of the work. In that detailed preface your will find the
expression of the opinion of the whole of our Holy Synod with regard to
the validity of the anathemas regarding that issue, together with the
eternal Pan-Orthodox and Conciliar opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I believe that the mentioned preface can be used to remove any doubt and
as a theoretical Definition of faith of our Russian Orthodox Church in
Exile ...” (Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon, August-September,
1972.

In 1976 the Matthewites severed communion with ROCOR. ROCOR had broken
their promise to give them a OFFICIAL written confession of faith that the
new calendarists were without grace, and were continuing, especially in
the person of Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, to have communion with the new
calendarists/world orthodoxy. Archbishop Anthony was continuing to
concelebrate with the new calendarists at this time, causing several
priests and parishes to leave him for the Matthewites.